since9
Campaign Veteran
I'm interested in hearing what M-Taliesin has to say about this.
I believe that even though the statute of limitations had expired, and the one in possession was beyond prosecution, if the coins were indeed stolen, then they should be returned to their rightful owner.
On the other hand, the Government's argument was that the coins "were likely stolen." That doesn't mean they were stolen. Lack of a sales receipt held by the Government doesn't mean they were stolen. Lack of a sales receipt held by the man's daughter doesn't mean they were stolen, either.
This one's the kicker, however: "The jeweler had been investigated for illegally possessing gold coins in the 1930s and '40s, but Switt was never prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired."
If he was investigated for illegal possession some 70 years ago, why weren't the coins confiscated way back then? If the coins are worth $7 Million each, I'd appeal on the grounds the Government vacated their claim 70 years ago when they chose not to recover the coins back then.
I believe that even though the statute of limitations had expired, and the one in possession was beyond prosecution, if the coins were indeed stolen, then they should be returned to their rightful owner.
On the other hand, the Government's argument was that the coins "were likely stolen." That doesn't mean they were stolen. Lack of a sales receipt held by the Government doesn't mean they were stolen. Lack of a sales receipt held by the man's daughter doesn't mean they were stolen, either.
This one's the kicker, however: "The jeweler had been investigated for illegally possessing gold coins in the 1930s and '40s, but Switt was never prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired."
If he was investigated for illegal possession some 70 years ago, why weren't the coins confiscated way back then? If the coins are worth $7 Million each, I'd appeal on the grounds the Government vacated their claim 70 years ago when they chose not to recover the coins back then.